LAWS(J&K)-2013-2-2

PALLVI TICKOO Vs. DINESH DHAR

Decided On February 01, 2013
Pallvi Tickoo Appellant
V/S
Dinesh Dhar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by an estranged wife Smt Pallvi Tickoo, with a prayer that the petition filed by her husband Sh Dinesh Dhar, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (here-inafter called the Act), for dissolution of marriage, may kindly be ordered to be transferred from the court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial cases), Jammu, to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Kathua.

(2.) It has come on record that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Shiva Nagar, Ward No.16, Kathua, on 9th of Dec'10. According to the averments made by the estranged wife, the relationship between the parties got soured because the respondent-husband started behaving arrogantly. By mid July'11, he completely abandoned her and withdrew from her society without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, she joined back with her parents in July'2011, and is residing with them since then. All efforts made by her for resolution of dispute between them have failed, which resulted in filing of a petition on 29th of Dec'11, under Section 9 of the Act, for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, in the court of District Judge, Kathua. The court has already issued process to the respondent-hushand who has appeared before the learned court at Kathua.

(3.) As a counter-blast to the aforesaid petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner-wife, the respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 24th of March'12, in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu, which is registered as File No. 665 H.M.A. Therefore, a prayer has been made that the later petition filed by the respondent-husband may be ordered to be transferred to Kathua, as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. Despite service on the father respondent-husband Sh Bhola Nath Dhar, on two occasions, respondent-Dinesh Dhar has failed to appear. Therefore, I have proceeded to hear Mr VB Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife.